The Truth about the Easton Stealth

[Dave 1]

Someone who owns a slide gauge / sliding caliper should measure the shafts. That'd deliver much more exact values.

I just cannot follow your equation here:

Using the Industry Standard Length of 57", multiplied by .125 (1/8 of an inch) total circumference peeled off the Synergy to get the Stealth is 7.125 inches, which is 12.5% of the shaft.

By multiplying the length of the shaft with the 1/8 inch of circumference , you get the surface in square inches that they (allegedly) took off. (entire circumference x length = entire surface of the shaft). So the surface of the shaft was allegedly reduced by 7.125 square inches.

Then you state that thes 7.125 square inches are 12.5% of the shaft. This means the entire surface of the old Synergy shaft would have been 57 square inches. Divided by the length of the shaft (57 inches) this would mean that the entire shaft circumference would be 1 inch! You do the math... there is a mistake.

Let me make this much more simple: to calculate the reduction in shaft material and thus the weight loss due to the smaller circumference, you do not even need to operate with the length value.

To give a simple example: Imagine a shaft with a length of 50 inches and a circumference of 4 inches that weighs 500g. If you now reduce the circumference by 10%, you get a new circumference of 3.6 inches and a new weight of 450g. The circumference and the weight correlate in a fix manner. You do not need the length of the shaft to do this equation.

Now back to your example: You said that the Stealth shaft is 1/8 inch smaller in circumerence compared to the old Synergy. What you did NOT say is what the TOTAL circumference of the Stealth and/or the Synergy shaft is. But given your result of 12.5% reduction in circumference, this means in your equation the Synergy shaft has a shaft circumference of 1 inch! (0.125 inch reduction of circumference / 0.125 total percentage = 1). I have never owned an Easton OPS but I doubt that the shaft of a Synergy has a circumference of 1 (one) inch.

Let me do another equation:

My XN10 OPS shaft has a max (measured) circumference of 3 2/3 inches (3,66 inches). Imagining that TPS did the same thing: reducing the shaft circumference by 1/8 inch. The new shaft would have a circumference of 3,535 inches (3,66 inches old circumference - 0,125 inches reduction). In percentages this means that the circumference was reduced by 3.42 % [100 - (3,535/3,66)].

Now given that shaft circumference and shaft weight correlate (fix), this means that by reducing the shaft circumference by 1/8 inch or 3.42%, the shaft's weight got reduced by 3.42% as well.

This being said, the reduction of the circumference of the Synergy by 1/8 inch, CANNOT result in a 12.5% weight reduction. Depending on the total circumference of the Synergy shaft (which cannot be far from my XN10's circumference), the 1/8 inch reduction is less than a 4 % reduction! Not 12.5%.

Not to forget that your equation contains another significant mistake: You do not include the weight of the blade in your equation. The shaft makes (at best) 2/3 of the entire stick's weight. Even if your 12.5% were correct, this would not mean that the weight of the stick droppped from 455 to 398. If the shaft made up 300g of the old stick, the alleged 12.5 % reduction would result in a 37.5g reduction which would make the Stealth weigh 417.5g.

All in all, your calculation is not just lacking precison... your calculation is just plain wrong.

Assuming that they really reduced the circumference by 1/8 inch, we have seen that this is a reduction of max 4%. Assuming that the weight of the shaft made up 2/3 of the weight of the Synergy, the 4% reduction would reduce the shafts weight by 12 (TWELVE! DOUZE! ZWÖLF! DOCE!) grams. The skinnier Synergy / new Stealth would therefore weigh 432g.

[Modo9 0]

Very valid points. The XN10 however I think is not a good example because the shaft shape is concave it is extremely hard to accurately measure. And TPS readily admits they simply removed the kevlar to get the weight reduction.

The length of the stick is valid. Picture the standard Synergy stick, imagine the shaft were paper and you could unfold it and lay it flat like a piece of paper. Now take an exacto knife and cut off a 1/8 inch sliver from top to bottom on one side and then fold the paper back into the four walls of a shaft. I estimated that to be .125% of the entire shaft circumference. Given your points it looks like that number is wrong. When I get a chance I will measure the actual circumference of both sticks and then go from there. My flimsy original theory was a good starting point, with the feedback you provided I think it can be tweeked a great deal to be a great deal more accurate.

But I think the Bottomline remains the same: Easton is not capable of taking the same shaft size as the original Synergy and make it 395 grams. If Easton were to take the hallmark grey Synergy we all love, and somehow make it as durable, or more durable, and manufacturer it below the 400gram mark, not that would be something for Easton to brag about.

[Neo5370 132]

Or we could all take the 400 dollars it would take to buy 2 stealths and get a bunch of fully customized woodies.

At least that's what I'd do if I had 400 shlotzkis to spend on sticks :D

[Chadd 916]

Very valid points. The XN10 however I think is not a good example because the shaft shape is concave it is extremely hard to accurately measure. And TPS readily admits they simply removed the kevlar to get the weight reduction.

They used a different material, it's not like they just removed one of the components and didn't replace it with another.

[Modo9 0]

Very valid points.  The XN10 however I think is not a good example because the shaft shape is concave it is extremely hard to accurately measure.  And TPS readily admits they simply removed the kevlar to get the weight reduction.

They used a different material, it's not like they just removed one of the components and didn't replace it with another.

It'd be interesting to see the laymen specs on the difference between xn10 carbon and the carbon composition used on the original Response. Either way I think the weakness in xn10 tapers and TPS's reintroduction of the Adrenaline with Kevlar wrap sums it up pretty well.

I think if Easton used a completely different composition for the Stealth they would have marketed the heck out of it, knowing Easton.

[Dave 1]

Very valid points. The XN10 however I think is not a good example because the shaft shape is concave it is extremely hard to accurately measure. And TPS readily admits they simply removed the kevlar to get the weight reduction.

The length of the stick is valid. Picture the standard Synergy stick, imagine the shaft were paper and you could unfold it and lay it flat like a piece of paper. Now take an exacto knife and cut off a 1/8 inch sliver from top to bottom on one side and then fold the paper back into the four walls of a shaft. I estimated that to be .125% of the entire shaft circumference. Given your points it looks like that number is wrong. When I get a chance I will measure the actual circumference of both sticks and then go from there. My flimsy original theory was a good starting point, with the feedback you provided I think it can be tweeked a great deal to be a great deal more accurate.

But I think the Bottomline remains the same: Easton is not capable of taking the same shaft size as the original Synergy and make it 395 grams. If Easton were to take the hallmark grey Synergy we all love, and somehow make it as durable, or more durable, and manufacturer it below the 400gram mark, not that would be something for Easton to brag about.

Ok, let's take your example of laying the shaft's walls flat like paper:

length: 57 inches

Reduction in circumference: 1/8 inch

Old Synergys circumference: around 3 2/3 inches (it CANNOT be far from that, but somebody please measure it for verification).

Old entire surface of the paper = 57 inches x 3 2/3 inches = 208.62 square inches.

Surface taken off by reducing the shaft's circumference by 1/8 inch = 57 inches x 1/8 inches = 7.125 square inches taken off.

New entire surface after reduction = 208.62 - 7.125 = 201.495 square inches.

Difference in percentage between old (Synergy) and new (Stealth) surface ("shaft's walls flat like paper"): 1 - (201,495 / 208.62) = 3.4153 %

So it does not make a difference to my older equation. You do not need the length value to calculate the reduction in weight. The result is still 3.4153 %, not 12.5 %.

Yet, I have to agree with your statement: Easton would not have achieved a sub-400g weight without reducing the shaft's circumference. But the sole reduction of circumference saved them about 12g, not more.

[Eazy_b97 1]

Old Synergys circumference: around 3 2/3 inches (it CANNOT be far from that, but somebody please measure it for verification).

I'm getting 3 and 2/3" on my Si-core Grip.

[Modo9 0]

Your numbers look to be right. So we are missin approx 8% not accounted for. I am going to Guess (pure specualation) that the lack of a hosel removes say 1%; thinner shaft walls may account for as much as 5% and the thinner blade profile another 2%. Whatcha think of that?

[Dave 1]

sounds reasonable. In your initial post your point was that Easton reduced the weight from 455 (Synergy) to 398 (Stealth) SIMPLY by reducing the shaft's circumference by 1/8 inch. Now we've seen that the reducion of the circumference results in a weight loss of 12g. The missing 45g lost in weight come from other modifications. So your initial post was far off.

Thus the modifications made for the Stealth go far beyond a simple reduction of the shaft's circumference.

And there is another "mistake" in the whole equation: We know from experience that the advertised weights are just plain wrong (the true weight is much higher than the advertised weight). Let's weigh an identical (blade pattern, flex and shaft length) 04 Synergy and a 05 Stealth. THEN let's redo the maths with correct weights.

[Modo9 0]

sounds reasonable. In your initial post your point was that Easton reduced the weight from 455 (Synergy) to 398 (Stealth) SIMPLY by reducing the shaft's circumference by 1/8 inch. Now we've seen that the reducion of the circumference results in a weight loss of 12g. The missing 45g lost in weight come from other modifications. So your initial post was far off.

Thus the modifications made for the Stealth go far beyond a simple reduction of the shaft's circumference.

My initial post was a brainstorm, and idea, a theory in its infancy that I chose to share. It did have merits, although flawed, it was a good stepping stone for where we have arrived at (9 pages later.) And we have arrived here due to fabulous and creative posts from a myriad of modsquaders. So yes I Was Wrong, however :D I was on to something and in general principle I think we all discovered that a smaller shaft (thinner walls and smaller circumference) account for roughly 2/3 of the weight reduction. And again regardless of the numbers the fact remains Easton did not take an original Synergy and magically make it 395 grams. They also still cannot provide a legitimate basis for a 9/10 Wear, and in their catalogues and literature they should not pass of the Stealth as having the same handle shape and size as the Synergy and Synthesis.

[hockechamp14 0]

I'm not quite convined that a 12 percent shrink in the circumfrence results in a 12% shrink of weight. I can see it being one of they ways they chose to save weight, but I think you would have to measure basically the water displacement (without end plug) in order to have your real difference in amount of matieral used.

[Modo9 0]

I'm not quite convined that a 12 percent shrink in the circumfrence results in a 12% shrink of weight. I can see it being one of they ways they chose to save weight, but I think you would have to measure basically the water displacement (without end plug) in order to have your real difference in amount of matieral used.

Hey if you have a tank or access to such equipment I would love to see the results. Excellent idea, however the excecution is a different story. If someone could do it that would be awesome.

[Eazy_b97 1]

I think we all discovered that a smaller shaft (thinner walls and smaller circumference) account for roughly 2/3 of the weight reduction.  And again regardless of the numbers the fact remains Easton did not take an original Synergy and magically make it 395 grams.  They also still cannot provide a legitimate basis for a 9/10 Wear, and in their catalogues and literature they should not pass of the Stealth as having the same handle shape and size as the Synergy and Synthesis.

I thought it accounted for 12 grams of the 45 which was shaved off from the '04 SyNergy... which is roughly 1/4... not 2/3

As for the durability, you cannot provide a reason why it should not be rated at a 9/10. Results in your area? I'm sure if you were face to face with an Easton marketer they would name the test. It may be a test which heavily favours the Stealth compared to others, but I cannot imagine they just pulled a wear number out of their ass.

They could also be calling it the same handle as the '05 SyNergy and Synthesis line, not the '04 you measured.

[Ogie Oglethorpe 14]

This just occurred to me...... isn't the Stealth supposed to be longer?

Also, if someone has a scale, measure the difference in weight between the standard wood plug and the Stealth carbon fibre one, would you? Just curious....

It'd be interesting to see the laymen specs on the difference between xn10 carbon and the carbon composition used on the original Response. Either way I think the weakness in xn10 tapers and TPS's reintroduction of the Adrenaline with Kevlar wrap sums it up pretty well.

Oh.... and I thought that the Adrenaline was not supposed to be more durable, but offered better puck feel/less vibration?

[Sniper407 0]

how did you think they made it lighter? it was kind of obvious to me that this is what they did after taking the end plug out to cut the shaft. You arent going to be able to use basically the same materials in your other sticks to make one lighter than all the rest. I wouldnt be surprised if this is how all easton sticks were made or most other sticks besides eastons were made for that matter. and easton never said that the scale was out of 10 or if it was the same for all the sitcks ;) :lol:

If I could request one thing.. could you do a short little bit on the SL as well B)

and props for very nice work

[Modo9 0]

I think we all discovered that a smaller shaft (thinner walls and smaller circumference) account for roughly 2/3 of the weight reduction.  And again regardless of the numbers the fact remains Easton did not take an original Synergy and magically make it 395 grams.  They also still cannot provide a legitimate basis for a 9/10 Wear, and in their catalogues and literature they should not pass of the Stealth as having the same handle shape and size as the Synergy and Synthesis.

I thought it accounted for 12 grams of the 45 which was shaved off from the '04 SyNergy... which is roughly 1/4... not 2/3

As for the durability, you cannot provide a reason why it should not be rated at a 9/10. Results in your area? I'm sure if you were face to face with an Easton marketer they would name the test. It may be a test which heavily favours the Stealth compared to others, but I cannot imagine they just pulled a wear number out of their ass.

They could also be calling it the same handle as the '05 SyNergy and Synthesis line, not the '04 you measured.

Eazy you greatly dissapoint me. Dude, do you really think the Stealth deserves a 9/10 Wear? Wear includes wear on the stick. The inside heel of the blade on my Stealth Grip looks like Freddy Kruegers armpit. After three games a lot of the red paint is gone. Based on that alone how could you rate that a 9 out of 10. And many other members with similar Easton sticks painted on the bottom (SL) are experiencing major paint chipping. Paint chipping is a large part of "Wear." Also, looking at the Stealth Breakage Poll how can you seriously defend a 9/10 rating?

[Modo9 0]

how did you think they made it lighter? it was kind of obvious to me that this is what they did after taking the end plug out to cut the shaft. You arent going to be able to use basically the same materials in your other sticks to make one lighter than all the rest. I wouldnt be surprised if this is how all easton sticks were made or most other sticks besides eastons were made for that matter. and easton never said that the scale was out of 10 or if it was the same for all the sitcks ;) :lol:

If I could request one thing.. could you do a short little bit on the SL as well B)

and props for very nice work

I won't have an SL until they are released in stores because I want a specific flex and pattern that I haven't found yet on Ebay or at Behind the Mask.

As far as the Easton scaled being based on a 1-10 scale, does a bear shit in the woods?

[Modo9 0]

Back to Durability and Wear, so far 32 Modsquaders were Polled on how long their Stealth has lasted. http://www.modsquadhockey.com/index.php?showtopic=8660

So far the hard results are 40.625% of Modsqauders said there Stealth lasted under a month! An even 25% said it lasted between 1 and 3 months. So over 65% of Stealths so far have lasted less than three months. Only 28% polled said there Stealth lasted over 5 months!

Based off these results the Strealth should have a 3 Wear Rating.

[dietzie27 0]

Also, looking at the Stealth Breakage Poll how can you seriously defend a 9/10 rating?

dude, interesting points and all..... but stick do break. its part of the game. they are performance sticks. a little under a month is a long time for a composite stick.

[Eazy_b97 1]

Modo- You're not reading my posts carefully enough. I did not say that it deserves a 9/10, I said Easton would have a defense, and you have no proof other than "I know alot of people who have broken them quickly". When I was playing regularly I had roughly 15 OPS in my last 2 years. Only 2 lasted me more than a month and 1 was because it was a back-up for half of it, so those numbers aren't half bad for me. Considering the Synergy's were a 9 wear and I was getting roughly 2 weeks out of'em, those numbers seem great. It's all in how you look at it. I don't believe any of the Synergy should have the "Wear" numbers they do, but there is testing for it. Maybe someone who can remember the first posts on the Stealth could bring them back-up. The ones with the chart of the sticks, and their ratings. I think Durability was on there. Like I said I don't necessarily agree, I'm just saying I doubt they said slap a wear on here cause we can fool the hell out of those idiot consumers and risk a law suit. CCM did some tests on their sticks, and for some reason the Vector 110 was the best in every category.

[Modo9 0]

Also, looking at the Stealth Breakage Poll how can you seriously defend a 9/10 rating?

dude, interesting points and all..... but stick do break. its part of the game. they are performance sticks. a little under a month is a long time for a composite stick.

A stick lasting under a month is Not a Good thing no matter what period

If you were content to break a Stealth a month and played year round, you be spending around $2400.00 a year on a stick. I don't see how that could be anything but absurd.

[Modo9 0]

Modo- You're not reading my posts carefully enough. I did not say that it deserves a 9/10, I said Easton would have a defense, and you have no proof other than "I know alot of people who have broken them quickly". When I was playing regularly I had roughly 15 OPS in my last 2 years. Only 2 lasted me more than a month and 1 was because it was a back-up for half of it, so those numbers aren't half bad for me. Considering the Synergy's were a 9 wear and I was getting roughly 2 weeks out of'em, those numbers seem great. It's all in how you look at it. I don't believe any of the Synergy should have the "Wear" numbers they do, but there is testing for it. Maybe someone who can remember the first posts on the Stealth could bring them back-up. The ones with the chart of the sticks, and their ratings. I think Durability was on there. Like I said I don't necessarily agree, I'm just saying I doubt they said slap a wear on here cause we can fool the hell out of those idiot consumers and risk a law suit. CCM did some tests on their sticks, and for some reason the Vector 110 was the best in every category.

Yes, and CCM still doesn't put a Wear rating on their stick! I am convinced Easton put a Wear rating of 9 simply to sell sticks. I am not going to debate the point any further.

[dietzie27 0]

well people want these sticks that weigh close to nothing and wonder why they break. i wanna know what the stealth has that a shaft/blade combo doesnt. whats the big difference in a 395 gram stick, and a 460 shaft/combo. or a regular 450 gram ops. its all in peoples head. people dont care if they cant use 100 flex, they want the stealth. the stealth is gonna make them play like god. its all b/s.... theres my 2 cents

[forsberg91 0]

I agree 100% with dietzie. A kid on my team got a Stealth and said that he liked his Graf wood stick over the Stealth. I could tell that he got ALOT more on his shot with the wood stick. I know that it is all personal preference, but alot of it is in your head. When I got my Si-Core, the first time I used it I felt a difference just because I wanted to feel a difference. I guess I was just making myself believe that the stick was something incredible and worth the money I worked hard to earn.

[Modo9 0]

Update: My Stealth Grip broke Friday night.

Funny thing, right after half of my llivelier, hotterblade when flying down the ice, the very next shift I grabbed my Synthesis yellow Grip and scored ten strides off the bench. I chalk it up to the 10 Performance rating B)